Spivak’s frequently quoted human rights=Social Darwinism aphorism is cool and all, but, it’s pretty hard to find a movement to be proud of from the nineteenth century to the present that doesn’t rely on a philosophical logical that couldn’t be plausibly anologized to Social Darwinsim. Look, Social Darwinism (i.e Eugenics) is disgusting but Spivak’s argument encompasses a larger number of ethical and self-strengthening movements than her text is willing to identiy. This is one of those extremely frustrating “I get what you’re saying, but…” moments where an argument that you basically agree with Loses because it relies on a highly marketable guilt by association move. What to do? Endorse Social Darwinsim (of course not) or follow the logic of the argument to its logical point and shit on nearly all “progressive” movements that you can recall? Well, Fuck that. Would anyone really accuse Al-Haq or the people of Bil’in of being Social Darwinist?
Look, there is a real problem here. Information politics are bereft with problems. Ethico-political criticism is easily co-opted and manipulated by those with power or the state or whatever you want to call them/it. But, tactics and strategy should follow a thorough conjunctural analysis, not precede it. These paradigms. Lord Have Mercy.
